You can't win an argument about whether something is unclear by proving (let alone merely asserting) it is so. This is something a lot of people seem unclear on.

The only people unclear on this point are people who have failed to do even the most basic research into what GDPR says. It is blindingly obvious that an email is information that can be used to identify a person.

I'm not arguing with you. If it is clear, then it suggests people saying it is not clear are basically trolls. Surely you can see that telling an apparent troll to admit being a troll is unproductive. You might be right, or you might be wrong, but you can't win that debate because it's about inner motivations and perceptions and not verifiable facts.

Whether something is clear or not is not dependent on whether a specific person knows it.

A reasonable person who is even minimally informed about GDPR will know that an email address is covered by GDPR, hence it is "clear".

Why though? Email addresses are quite obviously "something that identifies a person".

I'm not debating what's clear or not to me. My point is that it's subjective and if someone says a thing is unclear, you can not necessarily make it clear to them or force them to admit they are lying about their perception. Arguing with confusion is like debating whether someone is in pain when they act like they are. It could be they are lying. It could be they are not. It could be they are particularly stupid.

I want to emphasize - you can be right or wrong about the GDPR, but that's not the same thing as being right or wrong about whether people are confused by it.

I think it should be obvious that debating feelings or perceptions or emotions of other people tends to lead to unproductive interpersonal interactions, but perhaps others have not noticed this phenomenon. I can't imagine winning a debate with someone over whether they are trolling or not. Even if it's really obvious, nobody can see inner motivations for sure.

> It could be they are lying. It could be they are not. It could be they are particularly stupid.

At the point where one can prove that one part is too (trollish || stupid) I think it is reasonable to limit how much we care about their opinions.